This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa] Attach vsyscall support for GNU/Linux
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>, Mark Kettenis <kettenis at gnu dot org>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, ezannoni at redhat dot com, cagney at gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 04:17:44 -0400
- Subject: Re: [rfa] Attach vsyscall support for GNU/Linux
- References: <20041024231636.GA21927@nevyn.them.org> <200410260251.i9Q2pQbc004556@magilla.sf.frob.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 07:51:26PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I just don't think this problem is solvable within the existing CFI.
> > I don't know whether it is solvable by extending DWARF. Just to make
> > sure I'm on the right page, I'll recap one instance of why GDB needs to
> > know it's found a signal handler.
> >
> > Here's __kernel_rt_sigreturn (starts at 0xffffe440).
> > ffffe43f: 90 nop
> > ffffe440: b8 ad 00 00 00 mov $0xad,%eax
> > ffffe445: cd 80 int $0x80
> >
> > Here's the unwind information:
> > 000000c4 00000044 00000084 FDE cie=00000044 pc=ffffe43f..ffffe447
> > DW_CFA_def_cfa_expression (DW_OP_breg4: 188; DW_OP_deref)
> > DW_CFA_expression: r0 (DW_OP_breg4: 204)
> > DW_CFA_expression: r1 (DW_OP_breg4: 200)
> > DW_CFA_expression: r2 (DW_OP_breg4: 196)
> > DW_CFA_expression: r3 (DW_OP_breg4: 192)
> > DW_CFA_expression: r5 (DW_OP_breg4: 184)
> > DW_CFA_expression: r6 (DW_OP_breg4: 180)
> > DW_CFA_expression: r7 (DW_OP_breg4: 176)
> > DW_CFA_expression: r8 (DW_OP_breg4: 216)
> > DW_CFA_nop
> >
> > This is accurate. It correctly locates the saved values of all
> > registers. However, this is the frame_address_in_block problem; if the
> > first instruction of a function generates a synchronous signal, then
> > the restored value of r8 (the PC) will point to the first byte of the
> > function. GDB will use the unwind information for the previous
> > function.
> >
> > I bet you could reproduce the corresponding problem by an extremely
> > signal-heavy stress test using NPTL and asynchronous cancellation.
> > Roland, am I missing something? Won't we go off into never-never land
> > if we're at the first instruction of a function call when a signal is
> > received and we try to do a forced unwind?
Yeah, this is a known problem, but not yet dealt with.
See http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=300
for details.
Option Three in Richard's #7 comment sounds the best thing to do, but
I didn't get to implement it yet.
Jakub